4 ms·

> In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice than Iraq. This sentence sounds very alien to me, am I alone? It suggests th

by bpizzi 10y ago

> In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice than Iraq. This sentence sounds very alien to me, am I alone? It suggests that USA had to invade something, just for the sake of invasion. Maybe the scars of the two WW are still a little too fresh where I live (France) for me to understand such a point of view. I'm trying hard to put an adjective on that mentality, but all that comes is alien, as in inhuman.

rl3 10y ago
>It suggests that USA had to invade something, just for the sake of invasion. Correct, at least with the administration at the time. Iraq was invaded on the flimsiest of pretenses, and was done in a fashion to maximize profit. For example: Critical infrastructure was targeted under the pretense of rapid dominance largely for the purpose of creating incredibly lucrative reconstruction contracts for that administration's criminal friends. It's not like we needed to take out power and water for months. Not to mention lucrative private security contracts, privatized logistics for the military, munitions and weapon systems. Attempts at privatizing Iraq's oil that only served to further fuel the brutal insurgency. The list goes on. >Maybe the scars of the two WW are still a little too fresh where I live (France) for me to understand such a point of view. I'm trying hard to put an adjective on that mentality, but all that comes is alien, as in inhuman. It is inhuman, when the motivations are profit. On the other hand, there's people suffering in North Korean camps that endure Holocaust-like conditions right now, as we speak. Liberating those people would be a moral justification for war if I've ever heard one.
- bpizzi 10y ago
  > On the other hand, there's people suffering in North Korean camps that endure Holocaust-like conditions right now, as we speak. Liberating those people would be a moral justification for war if I've ever heard one. You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands casualties, not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war. That's a pretty bad argument for a moral justification for an invasion, don't you think?
  - rl3 10y ago
    >You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands casualties... It's probably a worst-case estimate. It really depends on the efficacy of allied counter-battery fire and air capabilities versus enemy artillery positions. There's also room for creativity. Park a carrier battle group off the coast of Seoul and fake a serious reactor event during a period of easterly winds, with mandatory evacuation southward in the days prior to the invasion. >...not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war. If you're referring to North Korea: I'm not advocating invasion presently, merely lamenting that NK was not confronted prior to acquiring nuclear weapons. Invasion today only works with absolute assurance you can neutralize NK's nuclear capability, and that's extremely difficult if not impossible. If you're referring to China and Russia: I'm pretty sure that to them, North Korea is squarely not worth risking nuclear confrontation with the United States over. >That's a pretty bad argument for a moral justification for an invasion, don't you think? No, I don't. There is an almost equal number of people languishing in hellish prison camps—some their entire lives—with a far greater amount in the general population living meager, miserable existences. The very nature of it should transcend simple body count calculations in all but the most extreme cases of disparity. The civilized world has a moral obligation to wield its power in such a manner that doesn't allow such suffering to exist, even if doing so incurs a heavy cost. Can you imagine if World War II had a different outcome, with Nazi Germany contained yet retaining its statehood? The term "Holocaust survivor" probably wouldn't be present in the modern lexicon. Such fiction isn't too dissimilar from the plight of North Korea's political prisoners today. By and large the civilized world doesn't give much of a shit about them. When airmen go down behind enemy lines, the forces available to rescue them don't say "Well, we ran the numbers and it's not worth the potential cost of a rescue mission. So, we're just going to forget they exist instead." Esprit de corps ensures a moral obligation to do the right thing regardless of the risk. I'm simply advocating for the same ideal on a basic humanitarian level.
    - bpizzi 10y ago
      I get your points, some makes sense. However I will stick to thinking that NK is a problem that must be handled by SK/China/Russia/Japan. If the humanitarian crisis is really that bad in NK, then it's the role of their neighbors to see that it ends. If said neighbors don't act, then the role of the rest of the world is to apply sufficient pressure on them. USA is not the de facto leader of opinion you seem to be suggesting that it is (no offense intended, I just try to state my mind). It has the military/economical power, yes, but as a country it stands as equal to others. It has no legitimate mandate to solve the NK humanitarian crisis. If you really want USA to be a benevolent dictator, then you should wish for USA to take on the third world problem (give an end to extreme poverty and uncontrolled population growth), or tackle the energy equation (seek unlimited/low-cost/co2-neutral sources). That would be applauded and praised (but this is clearly not the path chosen right now...). USA going into NK (deterrent/mass-destruction weapons or not) would simply repeat Vietnam, Afghanistan and Irak: a even more divided world where more and more humanitarian crisis will emerge.
dkarl 10y ago
It suggests that USA had to invade something, just for the sake of invasion. After 9/11 the public found it therapeutic to have an evil enemy they could go to war against. Powerful people in the Bush administration wanted an excuse to invade Iraq again, and the public's psychological need made it very easy for them to sell the war. North Korea never would have worked because they weren't the right race and religion for the U.S. public to conflate them with the 9/11 attackers. Going to war with North Korea wouldn't have served the psychological drive to "strike back."

by bpizzi 10y ago

rl3 10y ago

>It suggests that USA had to invade something, just for the sake of invasion. Correct, at least with the administration at the time. Iraq was invaded on the flimsiest of pretenses, and was done in a fashion to maximize profit. For example: Critical infrastructure was targeted under the pretense of rapid dominance largely for the purpose of creating incredibly lucrative reconstruction contracts for that administration's criminal friends. It's not like we needed to take out power and water for months. Not to mention lucrative private security contracts, privatized logistics for the military, munitions and weapon systems. Attempts at privatizing Iraq's oil that only served to further fuel the brutal insurgency. The list goes on. >Maybe the scars of the two WW are still a little too fresh where I live (France) for me to understand such a point of view. I'm trying hard to put an adjective on that mentality, but all that comes is alien, as in inhuman. It is inhuman, when the motivations are profit. On the other hand, there's people suffering in North Korean camps that endure Holocaust-like conditions right now, as we speak. Liberating those people would be a moral justification for war if I've ever heard one.

bpizzi 10y ago
> On the other hand, there's people suffering in North Korean camps that endure Holocaust-like conditions right now, as we speak. Liberating those people would be a moral justification for war if I've ever heard one. You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands casualties, not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war. That's a pretty bad argument for a moral justification for an invasion, don't you think?
- rl3 10y ago
  >You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands casualties... It's probably a worst-case estimate. It really depends on the efficacy of allied counter-battery fire and air capabilities versus enemy artillery positions. There's also room for creativity. Park a carrier battle group off the coast of Seoul and fake a serious reactor event during a period of easterly winds, with mandatory evacuation southward in the days prior to the invasion. >...not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war. If you're referring to North Korea: I'm not advocating invasion presently, merely lamenting that NK was not confronted prior to acquiring nuclear weapons. Invasion today only works with absolute assurance you can neutralize NK's nuclear capability, and that's extremely difficult if not impossible. If you're referring to China and Russia: I'm pretty sure that to them, North Korea is squarely not worth risking nuclear confrontation with the United States over. >That's a pretty bad argument for a moral justification for an invasion, don't you think? No, I don't. There is an almost equal number of people languishing in hellish prison camps—some their entire lives—with a far greater amount in the general population living meager, miserable existences. The very nature of it should transcend simple body count calculations in all but the most extreme cases of disparity. The civilized world has a moral obligation to wield its power in such a manner that doesn't allow such suffering to exist, even if doing so incurs a heavy cost. Can you imagine if World War II had a different outcome, with Nazi Germany contained yet retaining its statehood? The term "Holocaust survivor" probably wouldn't be present in the modern lexicon. Such fiction isn't too dissimilar from the plight of North Korea's political prisoners today. By and large the civilized world doesn't give much of a shit about them. When airmen go down behind enemy lines, the forces available to rescue them don't say "Well, we ran the numbers and it's not worth the potential cost of a rescue mission. So, we're just going to forget they exist instead." Esprit de corps ensures a moral obligation to do the right thing regardless of the risk. I'm simply advocating for the same ideal on a basic humanitarian level.
  - bpizzi 10y ago
    I get your points, some makes sense. However I will stick to thinking that NK is a problem that must be handled by SK/China/Russia/Japan. If the humanitarian crisis is really that bad in NK, then it's the role of their neighbors to see that it ends. If said neighbors don't act, then the role of the rest of the world is to apply sufficient pressure on them. USA is not the de facto leader of opinion you seem to be suggesting that it is (no offense intended, I just try to state my mind). It has the military/economical power, yes, but as a country it stands as equal to others. It has no legitimate mandate to solve the NK humanitarian crisis. If you really want USA to be a benevolent dictator, then you should wish for USA to take on the third world problem (give an end to extreme poverty and uncontrolled population growth), or tackle the energy equation (seek unlimited/low-cost/co2-neutral sources). That would be applauded and praised (but this is clearly not the path chosen right now...). USA going into NK (deterrent/mass-destruction weapons or not) would simply repeat Vietnam, Afghanistan and Irak: a even more divided world where more and more humanitarian crisis will emerge.

dkarl 10y ago

It suggests that USA had to invade something, just for the sake of invasion. After 9/11 the public found it therapeutic to have an evil enemy they could go to war against. Powerful people in the Bush administration wanted an excuse to invade Iraq again, and the public's psychological need made it very easy for them to sell the war. North Korea never would have worked because they weren't the right race and religion for the U.S. public to conflate them with the 9/11 attackers. Going to war with North Korea wouldn't have served the psychological drive to "strike back."